The Onion News Network has foreclosed on Alex Jones.
- Thread starter kinda
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I suppose. The real topic is not about Sandy Hook, nor is it about his lawsuit for libel, nor is it a general discussion of his radio station. The real topic is about the Onion trying to foreclose on him when their bid was not the largest and when the court switched from saying they would take the largest bid and make it public and instead didn't make it public and tried to push through a lower bid. The thread is about them trying to illegally shut down the radio station without a court order and without the money from the sale going through. How is the Onion the owner before the court officially recognizes that the payment has been made? That is what this thread is about.
-
1
- Show all
No they aren't. You are the one who is clueless.
https://apnews.com/article/alex-jon...nion-newtown-8352f1e442c5d37f64a798416ff5afa8
The Onion’s bid for Alex Jones’ Infowars hangs in the balance as judge orders new hearing
https://apnews.com/article/alex-jon...nion-newtown-8352f1e442c5d37f64a798416ff5afa8
The Onion’s bid for Alex Jones’ Infowars hangs in the balance as judge orders new hearing
-
1
- Show all
Wow, if that were me I could never talk like that in that situation. If someone accused me of those things and my son was killed by a mass murderer I'm not getting on the stand to reason with the person who slandered me. People grieve in different ways, but no way I would have been able to do that. Whenever I am forced to remember the absolute worst times in my life, I cannot speak like that.
-
1
- Show all
That is something I would be very interested to discuss and explore in a separate thread. By all means start a thread making your case for why some slander and libel should be classified as a crime with criminal prosecution. Give us what you think the criteria should be and I will certainly join the discussion.
-
1
- Show all
Congressional report and the latest independant large studies on Covid-19 and the various vaccines. They are each large documents. They are multinational and involve tens of thousands of people. Then dozens of researchers, thousands of people involved in the paperwork and mathmatics All pooled together to form the studies.
Then TRULY peer reviewed by other independent research scientists who wrote commentaries on methodologies as to whether the researchers used sound scientific methods or not.
Why? What do you have? A Podcaster who specializes in conspiracy theories?
Infowars is on the hook for hundreds of millions.
Alex Jones is a slimeball.
Then TRULY peer reviewed by other independent research scientists who wrote commentaries on methodologies as to whether the researchers used sound scientific methods or not.
Why? What do you have? A Podcaster who specializes in conspiracy theories?
Infowars is on the hook for hundreds of millions.
Alex Jones is a slimeball.
-
1
- Show all
stochastic terrorism, the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying, dehumanizing rhetoric by a political leader or other public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit hate crimes or other acts of violence against a targeted person, group, or community. In legal terms, stochastic terrorism generally does not constitute incitement or solicitation to violence, which is a serious crime in many countries, because the speech involved lacks sufficient specificity. Incitement entails explicitly directing or encouraging an act of violence against a specific target at a particular time or place, thus immediately putting the target at an identifiable risk. In contrast, stochastic terrorists do not supply their followers with any detailed plan of attack, which means that the particular time and place of the eventual violence are unpredictable.
Why this should not be a crime. During Slavery in the South they used the N word repeatedly and other vilifying and dehumanizing terms that inspires others to commit hate crimes. Now hate crimes were crimes, even during slavery, but not the vilifying dehumanizing speech. Why?
Well let's consider another example, during the Nazi reign of terror in Germany they did the same thing to the Jews. In some Islamic countries they do the same thing towards Christians. During WW2 we did the same thing towards Japanese and Germans, the people we were fighting. In fact they did this against Trump during this recent election calling him a Nazi and likening him to Hitler prior to two assassination attempts. The problem with making this a crime is that it is always those in power, those who enforce the law, who do this.
Second, who gets to draw the line? There is speech given by Schumer and other political leaders that clearly crosses the line in my opinion. Meanwhile in the Jan 6 trial they tried to claim that Trump saying "to peacefully protest" was code. In the last few months we have seen Joe Biden say to put Donald Trump in the bullseye days before he was shot. I think that crossed the line, he wasn't charged. But then they wanted to charge people campaigning for office for using words like "fight". I suspect that if they actually made this a crime it would be totally abused by those in power, accusing others of the very things they are doing while excusing themselves.
Then look at the definition, they have the criteria of it being used by a political leader or other public figure. That would have a chilling effect on public discourse. If the government could shut down every public figure that says something they don't agree with, claiming stochaistic terrorism then that would be a powerful weapon for censorship.
Also what does that mean, public figure? Does that mean that anyone can say anything they want on Facebook, but the minute they are running for office they will dig up stupid things they said in college and throw them in jail? Does this mean only the elites get to decide who runs for office?
Why this should not be a crime. During Slavery in the South they used the N word repeatedly and other vilifying and dehumanizing terms that inspires others to commit hate crimes. Now hate crimes were crimes, even during slavery, but not the vilifying dehumanizing speech. Why?
Well let's consider another example, during the Nazi reign of terror in Germany they did the same thing to the Jews. In some Islamic countries they do the same thing towards Christians. During WW2 we did the same thing towards Japanese and Germans, the people we were fighting. In fact they did this against Trump during this recent election calling him a Nazi and likening him to Hitler prior to two assassination attempts. The problem with making this a crime is that it is always those in power, those who enforce the law, who do this.
Second, who gets to draw the line? There is speech given by Schumer and other political leaders that clearly crosses the line in my opinion. Meanwhile in the Jan 6 trial they tried to claim that Trump saying "to peacefully protest" was code. In the last few months we have seen Joe Biden say to put Donald Trump in the bullseye days before he was shot. I think that crossed the line, he wasn't charged. But then they wanted to charge people campaigning for office for using words like "fight". I suspect that if they actually made this a crime it would be totally abused by those in power, accusing others of the very things they are doing while excusing themselves.
Then look at the definition, they have the criteria of it being used by a political leader or other public figure. That would have a chilling effect on public discourse. If the government could shut down every public figure that says something they don't agree with, claiming stochaistic terrorism then that would be a powerful weapon for censorship.
Also what does that mean, public figure? Does that mean that anyone can say anything they want on Facebook, but the minute they are running for office they will dig up stupid things they said in college and throw them in jail? Does this mean only the elites get to decide who runs for office?
-
1
- Show all
Yes it does despite what has been said in many media outlets.
Novel viruses found in the natural environment which have potential to infect humans need study for gain of function. And because of the class of virus (sars) it needed the research to determine the life cycle of contagion. Especially with such a high r-naught.
Where Wuhan screwed up was by NOT providing the level of containment required by those contracting with them during testing or by running experiments of their own in parallel and losing containment. (We don't know as the Chinese Government executed all involved)
Because Sars is a newly discovered class of virus...NIH had contracted to do lots of research into the various SARS viruses. This one, in particular, avenues of research were exhausted...the original researcher was looking for new subjects to research and the late stages were granted to others less capable but still sufficient to perform the routine research.
(Discoverer is tossed aside and others profit)
Lots of things go on in the research world that most have no clue about.
Novel viruses found in the natural environment which have potential to infect humans need study for gain of function. And because of the class of virus (sars) it needed the research to determine the life cycle of contagion. Especially with such a high r-naught.
Where Wuhan screwed up was by NOT providing the level of containment required by those contracting with them during testing or by running experiments of their own in parallel and losing containment. (We don't know as the Chinese Government executed all involved)
Because Sars is a newly discovered class of virus...NIH had contracted to do lots of research into the various SARS viruses. This one, in particular, avenues of research were exhausted...the original researcher was looking for new subjects to research and the late stages were granted to others less capable but still sufficient to perform the routine research.
(Discoverer is tossed aside and others profit)
Lots of things go on in the research world that most have no clue about.
-
2
- Show all
Now consider this, you are running for office, you have a campaign speech that is like any standard speech where you are going to fight for our rights, blah, blah, blah. A million people listen to that interview or speech and one of them then goes out and commits a violent act. Are the powers that be going to argue that although your speech was vague enough to not "incite" violence this person's act aligns with your speech and so you are now guilty for the crimes others commit. For example, suppose your speech was on how the insurance companies are doing everything in their power to not pay out and so you will introduce laws to regulate the industry, then this CEO is assassinated and it turns out he actually watched your speech two months earlier. Are they now going to prosecute you for stochaistic terrorism?
-
1
- Show all